What About Amy Klobuchar?
The Democrats would do well to nominate Klobuchar. Naturally, they won’t.

With less than 10 months to go until the 2020 presidential election, the Democratic Party is getting nervous, and for good reason. The primaries are starting soon and, just like the Republican Party felt in the run up to their own nomination process in 2016, they are worried about who their voters might decide to back.
Major political parties, at least in U.S. politics, operate with the unshakeable conviction that it is always best to go with an establishment candidate. Parties will eventually coalesce around an outsider candidate, someone initially on the fringes, but only when their own voters overcome any and all obstacles the parties put up to steer them toward more conventional options. Prior to the primaries, party money and support tend to overwhelmingly fall on establishment-friendly types.
Part of it is because these establishment types perpetuate the interests of the establishment—a shocking idea, I know. But the other part is that the parties think these are the candidates best positioned to take out the rival. So the biggest considerations tend to be political conformity and electability.
Soon, the pulse of the voters will be taken. By this time next month, we should have a much better idea of who will face Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Four states will have voted by then. The Iowa caucuses take place on February 3rd, the New Hampshire primaries on the 11th, the Nevada caucuses on the 22nd, and South Carolina votes on the 29th.
The Democrats are in a precarious position, and they know it. They face a deceptively strong incumbent who enjoys unbridled support from his base, boasts a strong economy, and recently showed calculating strength in dealing with a major sponsor of terrorism: Iran. In addition, the Trump reelection machine has gotten a lot of traction from the narrative that Democrats have been foaming at the mouth for three years to undo the 2016 election: first via the Mueller-led Russia investigation and now via the impeachment saga.
In our media ecosystem, which allows an electorally sufficient number of Americans to custom-create their newsfeeds so that they only ever hear from sources they agree with, it’s entirely possible that no amount of fact-checking could ever trouble the narrative, promoted by Trump and his breathless defenders, that he’s the real victim in all this.
Plus, Trump will be tougher to deal with in the coming presidential debates than many Democrats expect. There is naive but persistent myth that smart candidates can “run circles around” more intellectually challenged candidates. She was a professor, so of course she’ll smoke Trump in the debates; if only we back this candidate with significant congressional experience, he’ll expose Trump’s lack of legislative knowledge; etc. But Trump shines in these moments because few Americans use an English teacher’s essay rubric as their scorecard; instead, Trump’s boisterous, swaggering, soundbite-or-nothing debate technique can easily overcome the most polished, policy-rich approach the other side might muster.
For all the above reasons, the Democratic Party is under considerable pressure to get this right.
Here on Arc, Alexander Blum argues that the nominee should be Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But his reasons all have to do with the long-term goals of the progressive movement. It is possible this is a case of political hyperopia, the opposite of myopia, in that the party backs the candidate they think is best for the future of the party all the while being a suboptimal choice to defeat Trump this coming November.
Meanwhile, the frontrunner in the national polls, former Vice President Joe Biden, appears incapable of running a strong, coherent campaign. The concerns over Biden’s age and health aren’t just coming from the outside—they’re coming from the candidate himself: Yesterday, in Iowa, he told a crowd: “Whomever I pick [for vice president ought to be] capable of being president, because I’m an old guy. No, I’m serious!” Can Biden excite enough voters to edge out Trump? He’s maintained strong numbers so far, but if we take Democrats at their word that this is an election of world-historical importance, is the party ready to roll the dice on Joe Biden staying sufficiently gaffe-free, scandal-free, and lucid to beat an incumbent presiding over this economy?
Behind Sanders and Biden, who are leading the two major lanes, there are candidates who are vying to overtake them. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is seeking to pass Sanders in the progressive lane—which is why it has gotten testy between them recently. Despite having a non-aggression pact of sorts between them for the longest time, the two recently clashed over whether Sanders said something sexist and wrong. Sanders is leading in this particular lane and Warren needs to pass him to get the nomination. In the moderate lane, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are trying to pass Biden.
Klobuchar has been the most under-the-radar candidate of the bunch. The obvious upside to staying under the radar is avoiding the scrutiny and the attacks the frontrunners receive. The downside is even more obvious: you never quite get the support you need to win the nomination.
But Klobuchar might just be the candidate who best fits the party’s nomination criteria. Remember: they’re looking for an establishment-friendly type who is highly electable. Let’s take stock. Warren would likely face the same counter-socialist messaging that Sanders would receive, but with the added negative of being one of the candidates most susceptible to Trump’s mockery and ridicule of the entire field. Buttigieg is inexperienced and has historically awful numbers with a voting bloc key to defeating Trump.
Klobuchar lacks the electricity of the other candidates, but also lacks their various vulnerabilities. She’s less eccentric and less radical than her progressive counterparts, more coherent and capable than the moderate frontrunner, and more experienced and electable than her fellow moderate upstart.
Her poll numbers haven’t been good. But things might be changing. This is a new Iowa poll from today.
We can’t sugarcoat it, though. Nationwide, she barely registers as an option. An aloof billionaire who recently tried to shake a dog’s mouth is currently beating her. Unless something dramatic happens, she won’t end up rising enough to get the nod.
Despite being overlooked by the many who are focused on the contenders in the top spots, the New York Times editorial board officially endorsed Klobuchar for president. It was interesting that she was selected alongside Elizabeth Warren, the most popular female candidate in the field. Why not just back Warren? According to the Times, Klobuchar is the best “realist” option. They write:
Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.
The Times seems to have this one right: it’s not hard to envision Klobuchar appealing to a broad range of independents and politically homeless (former) Republicans.
She also comes across as relatable in a key electoral region.
Ms. Klobuchar speaks about issues like climate change, the narrowing middle class, gun safety and trade with an empathy that connects to voters’ lived experiences, especially in the middle of the country.
And she is deadly serious.
Ms. Klobuchar promises a foreign policy based on leading by example, instead of by threat-via-tweet. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she serves on the subcommittees responsible for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the nation’s borders and its immigration, citizenship and refugee laws. In 13 years as a senator, she has sponsored and voted on dozens of national defense measures, including military action in Libya and Syria. Her record shows that she is confident and thoughtful, and she reacts to data — what you’d want in a crisis.
As an independent conservative, I will support neither this president nor any of his Democratic challengers. I’m an outside observer patiently waiting for the end of this chapter and looking forward to 2024 and the freshness it (hopefully) brings.
With that being said, I recognize a few things.
Democrats are anxious to steer away from Republican populism and infuse progressive politics into D.C. and the rest of the country. But this end goal is not likely to be completed in one election cycle. America might eventually be ripe for a Sanders or Warren presidency, but (a) Obama’s two-term presidency, (b) Biden’s durable popularity, (c) and the clamoring among independents and moderates for a non-radical who can get things done suggests the best path to beating an incumbent presiding over a strong economy might just be to nominate someone who can plausibly do all the things the incumbent is doing, just better. This, of course, rather than a revolutionary who might drive sensible voters away or to hold their noses and vote for Trump’s reelection.
Democrats and Republicans differ on almost everything. But one glaring similarity is their thirst for celebrity. Klobuchar has zero star appeal — but this also means she isn’t plagued with the superficiality that more image-obsessed politicians concern themselves with. Her campaign is a package of experience, specifics, and a willingness to compromise when the situation calls for it. Trump might have a hard time with someone he can’t call Pocahontas, or Sleepy Joe, or whatever else. He might try Angry Amy—but good luck trying to frame that as a negative.
Klobuchar is the candidate the Democrats need. But she isn’t the candidate they are likely to select. Which means she isn’t the candidate they deserve.

